Reform (right side) or don’t reform (left). The left column is that of the statist status quo enforcement of transportation law ultra vires [beyond the scope]. The right-hand column tells the benefits of reform if Chattanooga becomes a sanctuary city from Tenn. Code Ann. Title 55 by insisting it will stop disobeying the law.

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. — Local economy has a theory strongly lococentric and insists on bottom-up reform, and rejects the hope of top-down reform, especially where constitutional liberties are in view.

Reform cannot be expected top down is because of the lobbies and interests surrounding the political, economic and other abuses that are systematic and some of which are not noticeable, even among moral and sensitive people.

I consider here the powerful interests that keep transportation statutes in Tennessee and other states enforced against private and noncommercial users of the roadways across the U.S.

Because of their hegemony, their control, their might makes right. The concept is repeated in a maxim of law, giving this evil system and appearance of legitimacy.

“A common error makes law, i.e., what was at first illegal, being repeated many times, is presumed to have acquired the force of usage; and it would then be wrong to depart from it.”

Why existing system meets no resistance

As we consider the prospect of traffic stop reform starting in Chattanooga (see Tenn. Code Ann. Title 55) and a ban on police activity under the transportation statute against people who are not involved in transportation, it is good to consider why the system rolls forward with no resistance.

People don’t know how to resist on the roadways. They don’t know how to resist in court. Lawyers are of no help. Judges ignore the problem.

It is difficult for people to withstand what is a rebuttable presumption. The presumption acting against the individual traveler is that he is involved in commercial activity, for profit and for hire, using the road in an extraordinary fashion pursuant to a privilege. The fact is for people such as Cameron Williams, the Chattanooga hiphop artist, or Keelah Jackson, under a “driving ban” by Judge Sherry Paty, are each a private user not exercising a privilege and are not commercial, and are not subject to Title 55 or its provisions.

Maxims in equity suggest why this system cannot be stopped in a top-down fashion, because they make clear that the defiance that eventually will topple it must be in individual circumstances. The system eventually will fall because it is resisted individually, at each traffic encounter on the side of the road by a Christian or other person jealous of his God-given, constitutionally guaranteed unalienable inherent rights.

Driver by rebuttable presumption

One of the main tactics under TAN is to overthrow rebuttable presumption about the status of the person behind the wheel. By rebuttable presumption, the man behind the wheel is a driver and operator. But if he is a private user, he is merely a traveler using a private conveyance or private chattel on the road, which is free and belongs to the people as a freeway.

Here’s why resistance to cops is so difficult, and an obstacle transportation administrative notice is designed to thwart up front at every Tennessee traffic stop.

➤ “A presumption arises from that which happens very often.”

➤ “A presumption will stand until the contrary is proven.”

➤ “Consent conquers the law, i.e., the agreement of the parties overcomes the law.”

➤ “Consent makes the law, i.e., a contract is law between the parties agreeing to be bound by it.”

➤ “Consent makes the law, and removes (or obviates, or does away with any error or mistake in the agreement.

➤ “Custom is considered law.”

➤ “He who consents cannot receive an injury, i.e., what a man consents to he cannot complain of.”

Do you see where these ideas are going? Because we have consented to abuse by police departments in every city and sheriff’s departments in every county, we almost cannot complain of a vast system with its supportive combinations who people in the police-industrial complex.

➤ “He who is silent when he ought to object is considered as consenting to what is done.”

➤ “He who is silent, when he ought to speak, appears to consent.”

Title 55 traffic enforcement against the private sector is ubiquitous in Tennessee that its illegality is not understood and its immorality is seen but by a few. African-Americans, the poor, immigrants, and the category “orphans and widows” are most injured and least able to escape ruination in the court and jail system.

➤ “The road that is worn by travel is the safest.”

Police abuse by officers serving Mayor Andy Berke and Sheriff Jim Hammond is so familiar, so ubiquitous, so built into the psyche of the American citizen, that we no longer see it as a fraud upon his rights, or a damage to his future, his heirs and his posterity.

These maxims clearly apply to individual relations among future disputants and litigants who end up in Hamilton County chancery court. But because we consent en masse to policing of our private movements, we can be certain to have a wicked confrontation if we intend to stand our ground.

It is said that “miserable is the slavery where the law is vague or uncertain.” But in conflict between the people and the state over the scope and subject matter jurisdiction of Title 55, the problem is not lack of clarity in the law. The law is clear. The problem we face is policy supported by the entire white legal political establishment starting in the capitol in Nashville all the way to city council led by Ken Smith and the sheriff’s department on Market Street in downtown Chattanooga.

Policy, not law, is the offender. Court rulings, not the law, are the source of evil practice, and the police growth industry in Tennessee and its practitioners cannot at any point imagine it not running tomorrow as it has for the past 80 years.

The claims of the Transportation Administrative Notice Tennessee project are in equity and in justice, under God’s law and under the state constitution. “Wherever there is a right there is a remedy for the violation of such right.”